get_storage_summary

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation (implied by 'overview'), it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output will be in, whether there are rate limits, or how current the information is. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with all necessary information in a single sentence. Every word earns its place by specifying exactly what components will be included in the overview (RAID controllers, virtual drives, physical disks) and what information will be provided (health and status). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It tells what the tool returns but not the format, structure, or completeness of the information. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has limited guidance on how to interpret the results. The description meets minimum requirements but leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the description focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to provide an overview of the storage subsystem including RAID controllers, virtual drives, and physical disks with health and status information. It uses specific terminology ('RAID controllers', 'virtual drives', 'physical disks') and indicates what information will be returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_inventory' or 'get_server_summary' which might also provide storage-related information.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that might provide related information (get_inventory, get_server_summary, get_server_health), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific storage-focused tool is most appropriate or what distinguishes it from those other tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.